This may be a done to death thread im not sure. I ask out of curiosty for the many views out there which expands the depth I see the system. What would you define as the core principles and rules of combat as wing chun or weng chun student. This a broad subject which I think will get many different view points thus make it interesting
p.s Mega_fist dont even think about talking about judo or poetry.
Thanks for your imput
This may be a done to death thread im not sure. I ask out of curiosty for the many views out there which expands the depth I see the system. What would you define as the core principles and rules of combat as wing chun or weng chun student. This a broad subject which I think will get many different view points thus make it interesting
Viper,
Lets first start by having you define principle and rules and maybe go from there.
Thanks
There are only two “core principles and rules of combat” which “as [a] wing chun or weng chun student” apply. They are universal to any striking art.
That’s the whole system. Anything else could possibly be “judo or poetry.”
Wing Chun is pretty well defined by the forms and the principles that can be extracted from an understanding of the forms. Economy of motion is a theme. The most well known Wing Chun sayings are:
Another slightly different variation I heard from the Jiu Wan people:
(Jiu Wan->Roland Wong-> Mark Lee)
Tai Chi, Aikido and Wing Chun all have the receiving idea but they implement the concept in different ways. All three arts are also concerned with the center and being centered and balanced but again do it in a slightly different way. All three can be said to use a variation of the circle theory and all have large and very small circles. Some people maybe overdo the circle aspect? The circle idea is not foolproof either. Wing Chun is also heavy on the triangluar structure.
Wing Chun has a certain look about it, chacterized by vertical stable postures with the body moving as one unit. The outside and inside approach are just two sides of the same coin with some lineages emphasizing one over the other and even within one lineage some students depending on their size relative to that of the opponent, also emphasizing one over the other. The outside is a longer route but sometimes you cannot take the inside (a charging bull).
General principles can apply to many arts. Once you add more and more then slowly you start to zero in on Wing Chun as being the art that the principles gravitate towards. It’s a good challenge to start with a minimum set of principles and then slowly add to the set to eliminate what arts it doesn’t apply to.
The forms have just the minimum physical actions required to implement the ideas of the art. The principles of Wing Chun can be applied to many other things so just on principals alone without the physical actions, it may not uniquely identify Wing Chun.
Wing Chun is like physics where the ultimate aim is to find the minimal set of laws to describe all of nature. Some arts (kempo, MMA?) are like chemistry where you try to find the maximal number of techniques.
To me Wing Chun is kind of a cross between boxing and fencing.
Ray
The characters for Wing Chun have been translated in several ways, but the one that is most meaningful to me would be “eternal springtime”. It says to me that Wing Chun should be always new, alive, dynamic, and adaptable, -not a set commandments carved into stone tablets.
Throughout human history there have been thinkers who have tried to devise a single unified “theory of everything”, which could be applied to explain every facet of the universe without exception, -but the problem is, the universe won’t stand still while they study it…
For me, Wing Chun will always be in flux, and this is how it should be. The eternal and ultimate bible of Wing Chun can never be written, and that is part of the art’s beauty, in that in can never really be captured and put in someone’s pocket or a behind a glass case. -Those who think that it can will later find that they’ve only captured a worthless shell.
-Lawrence
It’s that simple.
Phil
originally posted by lawrenceofidaho
For me, Wing Chun will always be in flux, and this is how it should be. The eternal and ultimate bible of Wing Chun can never be written, and that is part of the art’s beauty, in that in can never really be captured and put in someone’s pocket or a behind a glass case. -Those who think that it can will later find that they’ve only captured a worthless shell.
Lawrence,
This may well be true for you but it does not hold true for a system that would report to make use of “the most efficient” use of time, space and energy. Universal laws of nature are not “in flux” and the principles of Wing Chun flow out of the universal laws of nature or they could not be classified as principles. Example using YongChun’s Kuen Kuit.
- Receive what comes
There is no exception to the rule, it does not change depending on your lineage. Within the disgarded shell of others lay the pearls of wisdom for some.
I personally think it is a mistake to always choose the most “efficient and direct” of combat options. Some situations might provide us a choice between options that could be rated on a scale between 1-10 where one extreme is very powerful but also inefficient, and the other extreme is very efficient but has (comparitively) much less power. If you always make the same choice, you are predictable and can be figured out quickly by other fighters who can easily take advantage of a single dimensional approach that cannot / will not adapt.
Wing Chun doesn’t need to change because the laws of nature are changing, but because the skills, abilities, techniques, tactics, etc. of it’s practicioners’ opponents are always different.
My Wing Chun changes if I’m fighting a fast-handed welterweight trying to knock me out with outer range kicks & punches, a middleweight who wants to keep me in a clinch and fire knees & elbows, or a powerful heavyweight trying to tackle me to the ground. Each situation calls for different choices to be made in order to optimize one’s response.
I believe progress is made by questioning so-called “rules”.
Who is the one disregarding here, Tony? When you think that you can only consider actions that the rules of your lineage has traditionally asserted as correct, doesn’t that leave out quite a bit?
I say regard it all… Looking at the big picture and considering everything opens up more options for intelligent action, -it doesn’t cut them off.
-Lawrence
Quote:
Originally Posted by canglong
it does not change depending on your lineage. Within the disgarded shell of others lay the pearls of wisdom for some.
Who is the one disregarding here, Tony? When you think that you can only consider actions that the rules of your lineage has traditionally asserted as correct, doesn’t that leave out quite a bit?
I say regard it all… Looking at the big picture and considering everything opens up more options for intelligent action, -it doesn’t cut them off.
hey lawrence I think you misread tony’s typo!
Lawrence first you say,
originally posted by lawrenceofidaho
I personally think it is a mistake to always choose the most “efficient and direct” of combat options.
then you go on to say…
originally posted by lawrenceofidaho
Each situation calls for different choices to be made in order to optimize one’s response.
Lawrence,
You are arguing with yourself because of a lack of certainty, Wing Chun’s ability to produce the most efficient option possible is it’s greatest strength any time you choose the option other than that of the most efficient one you are making life harder for yourself not just in wing chun but for anything in life.
originally posted by lawrenceofidaho
Who is the one disregarding here, Tony? When you think that you can only consider actions that the rules of your lineage has traditionally asserted as correct, doesn’t that leave out quite a bit?
Lawrence,
Snakebyte8 is correct this statement indicates that you may have misread or misunderstood some of my earlier comments.
Tony,
if you read my last post once more, I think you’ll see that the quotes you produce which imply my uncertainty are out of context.
Surely there is a difference between efficiency of methods and efficiency of results. The implication I made in first paragraph of my last post was simply that the most efficient methods (e.g. - shortest path, least commitment, most economical movement patterns, etc.) may not always produce the most efficient results (decisive victory over the opponent with minimal injury to oneslf). Optimal results are [almost] always what is desired in a fight, so that should generally be assumed to be the desired outcome, -it is the methods for achieving this aim that I feel ought to be more closely considered…
I see my error of misreading of your statement about the discarded shell, but if all possibilities are afforded equal consideration (i.e. - scientific method), and a choice is made to move forward based on the best data provided by [personal] experimentation and empirical observations, I do not feel that it implies that the other options which were not chosen are “discarded”. -They are just another tool in the kit which is not being utilized in that moment.
To truly discard something would be to judge something inferior and not worthy of consideration. These types of conclusions, particularly in the martial arts world, are often made prematurely (without thorough investigation), and so must be taken with a grain of salt, even when coming from the mouths of “experts”.
There are famous sifus that think MMA is worthless to the Wing Chun practicioner, and there are famous MMA fighters & coaches that think Wing Chun is worthless to a competitive fighter. I personally think these are hasty judgements, and prefer to continue my study of both.
-Lawrence
originally posted by lawrenceofidaho
There are famous sifus that think MMA is worthless to the Wing Chun practicioner, and there are famous MMA fighters & coaches that think Wing Chun is worthless to a competitive fighter. I personally think these are hasty judgements, and prefer to continue my study of both.
Lawrence ,
The fundamental flaw in ideaology indicated in that statement is that wing chun has something that MMA does not or perhaps MMA has things that wing chun does not or fighting is part wing chun + part MMA. When in fact fighting is fighting and the person that is most proficient and efficient in application of the rules, laws, principles etc. of fighting will always be the fighter to achieve the “desired optimal results” and not the person that best learns wing chun + MMA or the person that best learns hung ga + TKD or the person that learns mantis + tai chi. Wing Chun like all its counter parts is the name given to the method of attaining particular insight and used to help proliferate a distinct body of knowledge (the principles of fighting). The acquisition method and application are indeed 2 seperate entities.
Back to the original question
originally posted by viper
What would you define as the core principles and rules of combat as wing chun or weng chun student.
Universal laws of nature are not “in flux”
Man’s understanding of them undergoes continuous change and refinement, and is indeed “in flux”. At least where disciplines of scientific inquiry are concerned.
Anything else is faith or fundamentalism.
By definition
Most efficient = most work done with least amount of effort. If changed something is lost.
Considering our objective in combat we cannot assume more efficient = “Less power” it’s more along the lines of precise power. So why would I choose to run around the block a few times or take slightly longer path before arriving at my destination? This does not make sense to me.
anerlich <wrote >Man’s understanding of them undergoes continuous change and refinement, and is indeed “in flux”. At least where disciplines of scientific inquiry are concerned.
Yes! this is what we call the “human factor” this will always be present when discussing hand to hand combat. But when discussing “most efficient” we are discussing that particular state human factor aside.
Chango
It seems to me that “most efficient” = YOU WIN !!!
And the other guy loses.
And the means of doing that can vary, so it’s all on a case-by-case basis.
…
“The implication I made in the first paragraph of my last post was simply that the most efficient methods (e.g. - shortest path, least commitment, most economical movement patterns, etc.) may not always produce the most efficient results (decisive victory over the opponent with minimal injury to oneslf).” (Lawrence)
***IN WHICH CASE, Lawrence…they are obviously NOT the most efficient methods in certain situations - and shouldn’t be labelled as such.
If someone attempts to throw a straight punch at me (allegedly “always” the most efficient method, since the shortest distance between two points is the straight line)…but I duck and throw a hook around his punch and knock him out - then whose method was the most efficient in that instance?
Victor, I think you and Lawrence are basically saying the same thing. He’s make a clear distinction between efficiency and effectiveness. There’s no point in effeciently taking the wrong course of action.
this is what we call the “human factor” this will always be present when discussing hand to hand combat. But when discussing “most efficient” we are discussing that particular state human factor aside.
You might be, I don’t think the rest of us are.
The thread, and Wing Chun, are about hand to hand combat, not “efficiency” in some “pure” sense removed therefrom.
In combat between humans, how can the “human factor” be left out?
It would be nice if life and KF were as simple and mathematically precise as some like to think, but basically … it never is.
Reality is probabilistic, not deterministic. Even the I Ching said as much in times prior to quantum mechanics. You can increase the odds in your favour through strategy and training, but combat remains a gamble.
As Victor alluded and St Bruce said, “Efficiency is anything that scores.”
How is it flawed to assert that each has things that the other does not?
Wing Chun, in fact, has many perspectives, ideas, techniques, and training methods that most MMA practicioners are not aware of, and MMA has many things that a majority Wing Chun practcioners do not understand or appreciate.
I’m not sure how you would extrapolate from what I wrote that I believe Wing Chun plus MMA equals fighting.
I think Wing Chun and all other martial arts are simply sources of ideas for fighting.
How the statement above is worded makes it difficult to asses the validity of supposed rules, laws, & principles because the failure of them can (and usually will) always be attributed to the individual rather than considering that the theory may flawed, incomplete, or not as universal as one imagined (especially if there is ego involved or a rice bowl to protect.)
“The system is perfect, the problem is with everyone who attempts to apply it!” :mad:
Putting faith in something usually leads to one becoming an apologist for it. It can mean stubbornly refusing to adapt & change when that is exactly what is called for.
-Lawrence
Hmmm, so why do people complain when a fighting clip doesn’t look like textbook WC? Or can it?
Phil
originally posted by lawrenceofidaho
Putting faith in something usually leads to one becoming an apologist for it. It can mean stubbornly refusing to adapt & change when that is exactly what is called for.
Lawrence,
Fortunately for us all the universal principles applicable to fighting do not require faith or change just good guidance and constant training. Best regards towards your personal endeavors in pursuit of a better understanding of those principles.